Regulated Vs. Prohibited

The probability of a life or lives being preserved in the event of a grievous attack upon the innocent:

Regulated infers that there are circumstances when a certain type of weapon may be possessed by an individual, whereas prohibited infers there are no circumstances when another type of weapon may be possessed by the same individual.

Police do not possess weapons prohibited to them such as nerve gas or bio-warfare viruses, however, they may possess a firearm. Therefore a firearm is a regulated weapon, not a prohibited weapon. There are procedures that regulate the use of a firearm such as rules of engagement, secure storage, and training requirements.

Given the circumstances that at times, although unlikely, the consequences of not having an effective capacity for self-defence may have grievous personal consequences, the rationale that police have regulated firearms is logical.

State-based legislation states that there is no genuine reason for a citizen to possess a firearm other than for purposes of pest control and sport. A firearm under current legislation is prohibited to citizens for the purpose of personal protection, which is to say self-defence.

Given there are circumstances, although unlikely, the consequences of not having an effective capacity for self-defence may have grievous personal consequences, the rationale that all citizens are prohibited from possessing a firearm is illogical.

It is not the circumstances faced by a police officer or citizen that differ. The only difference is the probability of each facing such circumstances.

It is reasonable to say that the police have a higher probability of facing such circumstances as first responders. However, it is not reasonable to say that citizens never face such circumstances because if this was so, who then are the victims of violent crime?

The moral argument is that current laws support evil actions.

“The best division of right, one kind to be natural, and the other voluntary calls it a lawful right in the strictest sense of the word law, and sometimes an instituted right. Of this kind is the evil of certain actions compared with the nature of a reasonable being.”

Aristotle

Conclusion

It is not a natural right to disarm a victim and thereby afford an advantage to an armed criminal in specific circumstances. Nor is it the nature of a reasonable being to use a weapon against another person other than for the purpose of self-defence.